IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH S MC, KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ] ITA NO.704/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) PRASHANT GOENKA, . -VERSUS- I.T.O., WARD-29 (4), C/O SHRI R.S.GOENKA, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:ADEPG 6484 D) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD.GAYALUDDIN ANSARI, JCIT,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2014. / ORDER THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF O RDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.56/CIT(A)-XVI/W-29(4)/10-11 DATED 23.01.2013.ASS ESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY I.T.O. WARD-29(4), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 2008-09 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.12.2010. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- BEING DIFF ERENCE IN THE OPENING STOCK IN A.Y.2008-09 VIS--VIS THE CLOSING STOCK IN A.Y2007- 08. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT THE AO DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING A.Y200 8-09 HAS SHOWN OPENING STOCK OF RS.15,68,592/- WHEREAS THE CLOSING STOCK IN A.Y2007 -08 WAS TAKEN AT RS.12,68,592/-. AS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK, AO MADE THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AGGR IEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. AGGRIEVED, NOW THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.704/KOL/2013 PRASHANT GOENKA,C/ O SRI R.S.GOENKA A.Y2008-09 2 IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME FILED COPY OF RECONCILIATIO N STATEMENT RECONCILING THE FACT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH, 2007 THERE ARE INVESTMENTS IN THE TEMPLETON INDIA MONEY MARKET MARKED AT RS.3,00,000/ - WHICH IS DISCLOSED AND THE SAME WAS INCLUDED IN THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01.04. 2007 WHILE TAKING THE FIGURE AT RS.15,68,892/. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE M E THAT EVEN THE AO HAS EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS BUT COULD NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF TH E SAME. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY EXPL AINED THE DIFFERENCE. SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IS EXPLAINED, I FIND NO REASON TO CONFIR M THE ADDITION. HENCE, THE SAME IS DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.09.2014. SD/- [ MAHAVIR SINGH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:5 TH SEPTEMBER. 2014. R.G.(.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. PRASHANT GOENKA, C/O SRI R.S.GOENKA, G.P.AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, 7A, KIRAN SHANKAR ROY ROAD, KOLKATA-700001. 2 THE I.T.O.-WARD-29(4), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XVI, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES